United States District Court, W.D. Michigan, Northern Division
JOHN R. KANERVA, Petitioner,
GREG ZYBURT, Respondent.
J. JONKER CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
a habeas corpus action brought by a state prisoner,
purportedly under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. However, because
Petitioner challenges his pretrial detention, his petition is
properly considered one under 28 U.S.C. § 2241. See
Atkins v. Michigan, 644 F.2d 543, 546 n.1 (6th Cir.
1981) (holding that, where a pretrial detainee challenges the
constitutionality of his or her pretrial-or
prejudgment-detention, he or she must pursue relief under 28
U.S.C. § 2241). Promptly after the filing of a petition
for habeas corpus, the Court must undertake a preliminary
review of the petition to determine whether “it plainly
appears from the face of the petition and any exhibits
annexed to it that the petitioner is not entitled to relief
in the district court.” Rule 4, Rules Governing §
2254 Cases; see 28 U.S.C. § 2243. If
so, the petition must be summarily dismissed. Rule 4; see
Allen v. Perini, 424 F.2d 134, 141 (6th Cir. 1970)
(district court has the duty to “screen out”
petitions that lack merit on their face). A dismissal under
Rule 4 includes those petitions which raise legally frivolous
claims, as well as those containing factual allegations that
are palpably incredible or false. Carson v. Burke,
178 F.3d 434, 436-37 (6th Cir. 1999). After undertaking the
review required by Rule 4, the Court will dismiss the
petition without prejudice for failure to exhaust available
John R. Kanerva presently is jailed at the Marquette County
Jail, awaiting a competency determination before he is tried
on the charge of unlawfully driving away an automobile, Mich.
Comp. Laws § 750.413. On November 20, 2019, Petitioner
filed his habeas corpus petition. The petition raises four
grounds for relief, as follows:
I. Right to Remain silent regarding Forced Com[petency] Exam
#2. I don't have to be compelled to be a witness against
II. Bill of Rights Amendments to U.S. Constitution due
process violated[.] I claimed my time. Time limited the
Petitioner's right to proceed. 5 amendment due process
III. 1st Amendment Right to petition the Government denied by
Judge in the 25th Circuit Court. See Order. Atty. not
Effective. Ineffective Att.
IV. Double Je[o]pardy Clause of the Constitution for the
United States of America. I've claimed my right, Denied.
(Pet., ECF No.1, PageID.6-7, 9-10.)
habeas petition is difficult to understand, though some
supplemental information is available in the attachments to
Petitioner's earlier attempt to remove his case to this
Court. See People v. Kanerva, No. 2:15-cv-130 (W.D.
Mich.). From these materials, it appears that
Petitioner was arrested on August 28, 2015, for taking a
vehicle that did not belong to him, based on a police
complaint filed by Petitioner's cousin's husband, who
contended that the car belonged to Petitioner's cousin.
Petitioner alleges that the complainant lied. Petitioner
contends that he bought the car from his brother on March 2,
2013, and that his brother gave him the title, which
Petitioner later misplaced. From the documents attached to
No. 2:15-cv-130, the complaint appears to be part of a
protracted series of disputes between Petitioner and his
cousin (and her husband) about the legality of their purchase
of real property from the county after Petitioner failed to
pay his taxes.
September 2, 2015, Petitioner was placed on an interim bond,
and he was ordered to appear on September 8, 2015.
(2:15-cv-130, PageID.56.) A preliminary examination was held
on September 10, 2015.
states that, on February 28, 2016, he calculated that the
180-day period for trial established by Mich. Ct. R. 6.004
had expired. Although represented by counsel, Petitioner
appears to have filed a motion to dismiss the case under the
180-day rule. The court apparently held that there had been
no violation of the 180-day rule. Sometime after this day,
the court issued a bench warrant to hold Petitioner for a
competency examination. Petitioner refused to participate in
the competency examination, contending that it amounted to a
religious test, because he knew from past experience that
examiners asked if he “believe[d] in Spirits and
Ghosts.” (Br. in Supp. of Pet., ECF No. 1-1,
PageID.18-19.) Petitioner alleges that, based on his
objections to the competency examination, the order for such
examination was dismissed, and Petitioner subsequently was
released from jail.
October 28, 2019, the trial court again ordered a competency
examination and directed that Petitioner's bond be
revoked and that he remain in custody pending completion of
the competency examination. (Marquette Cir. Ct. Order, ECF
No. 1-1, ...